Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

RMS Accused Of Attempting Glibc Hostile Takeover

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sun Aug 19, 2001 05:39 PM
from the things-are-never-dull dept.
Bram Stolk sent a bit in thats been floating around lately where Ulrich Drepper, glibc maintainer announces the new version, and sidetracks to discuss an an RMS takeover attempt and how he feels about it. He raises several good points and I tend to agree with him. The FSF has done, and continues to do so much good, but more and more tension continues to grow between the extreme free speech faction and the more moderate folks. People have asked my opinion, and I'll just leave it by saying I don't prefix "Linux" with those 3 little letters and a slash even tho I've been asked.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2
  • Thought Police by Stickerboy (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @05:43PM
    • Re:Thought Police (Score:4, Funny)

      by ChaosDiscord (4913) on Sunday August 19 2001, @05:55PM (#2195115) Homepage Journal

      Freedom of speech includes the freedom to complain loudly about other's speech. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to be as anal and vitrolic as you want. So what's the problem?

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Thought Police by cloudmaster (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:04PM
        • Re:Thought Police by cloudmaster (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:11PM
        • Re:Thought Police (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Chops (168851) on Sunday August 19 2001, @06:43PM (#2195288)
          This common misunderstanding is part of why RMS is so adamant about "GNU/Linux." A modern Linux system uses the GNU project's system libraries, compiler toolchain, and (mostly) command-line Unix tools (tar, gzip, etc.) Without any one of these, Linux couldn't function as a modern Free OS -- they're not "trivial" add-ons like Perl or Apache.

          I personally say "Linux," probably because I'm afraid of looking silly. It is true, though, that there's more GNU code on your machine than Linux (i.e. kernel) code, and it's just as necessary to get your bash prompt to come up. Some people say it's "more necessary" (since GNU has a kinda-sorta-almost-working kernel, but AFAIK gcc and glibc have no existing Free replacements), but that just starts flamewars.
          [ Parent ]
        • Re:Thought Police (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ChaosDiscord (4913) on Sunday August 19 2001, @06:57PM (#2195334) Homepage Journal

          I use some Gnu tools and many more non-gnu-licensed tools with my linux kernels. I'm not gonna say Gnu/Apache/Perl/BSD/etc/Linux, and neither should anyone else. Yeah, the system would be less useful without gnu tools, it'd also not be what it is without all the other pieces of software on it.

          The point isn't that the GNU tools are a major part of a standard Linux distribution.

          In the early 1990s, the GNU project had everything you needed for a baseline operating system. Compiler, assembler, linker, C library, shell. Everything except a kernel. Linus took those tools and added the final piece, the kernel. Linus didn't need X-Windows or Perl. Apache didn't exist. Linus needed a compiler, a linker, an assembler, a C library, and a shell. He used the GNU project's tools. Linux is built upon a foundation of GNU tools.

          That's why the Stallman can claim the GNU project has a valid claim to share the Linux title. Why bother? Politics. Stallman is pushing a political and ethical agenda. Free Software or nothing. Part of his job is to spread the word, and getting the GNU name used is a great way to do it. Every user who says "What's the GNU thing in front of Linux?" is an opportunity to spread the word.

          That said, I'm not sure I agree that it should be called GNU/Linux. It seems a bit pushy to me. But don't make the mistake that he wants it called GNU/Linux just because the GNU tools are part of the typical package. He wants it added to help spread the Free Software word. His claim is that the GNU tools where the foundation.

          [ Parent ]
          • Re:Thought Police by Second_Derivative (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:08PM
          • Re:Thought Police by crimoid (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:51PM
          • Re:Thought Police by Telek (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @08:27PM
          • Re:Thought Police by goodtim (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @08:46PM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:Thought Police by bwt (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @09:01PM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:Thought Police (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Arandir (19206) on Sunday August 19 2001, @09:39PM (#2195764) Homepage Journal
            But Linus Torvalds did not take an existing unfinished GNU operating system and merely add the missing piece. Yes, GNU could have taken the Linux kernel and completed its OS, but they did not. And it's not what Linus did.

            The real, unrevised, history is very different. Linus started with the goal of creating a complete operating system. Once he got the kernel and a few bits of infrastructure done, he and his collaborators chose to use off-the-shelf parts already available to complete it. Some of those parts were from GNU, but many others from elsewhere. And many of the crucial components were written *specifically* for Linux.

            To use an analogy, imagine that RMS set out to create an automobile. He was all finished except for the engine. Now Linus comes along and builds an engine. He goes and grabs a drive train and chassis from GNU Autoparts Store, and an electrical system from BSD. He and many friends contribute to the miscellaneous components. Voila! It's an ugly car, but it works.

            GNU does not get to name this automobile. They did not build it. They only supplied some critical parts.
            [ Parent ]
          • Re:Thought Police by Ratbert42 (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:08PM
          • Something doesn't ring true here by Tony Shepps (Score:3) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:49PM
          • Re:Thought Police by twilightzero (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @11:27PM
          • Re:Thought Police by HongPong (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @02:31AM
          • Re:Thought Police by Bazman (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @05:26AM
          • Re:Thought Police by Frodo (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @05:39AM
          • Re:Thought Police by jejones (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @07:02AM
          • Re:Thought Police by oconnorcjo (Score:3) Monday August 20 2001, @08:24AM
          • Re: Acronyms by cicadia (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @02:25AM
          • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:Thought Police by nathanh (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @05:34AM
      • Re:Thought Police by randombit (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:08PM
      • Re:Thought Police by Nater (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:34PM
      • Re:Thought Police by Chagrin (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:17PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Thought Police by Weh (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:41PM
      • Re:Thought Police by mr_death (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @08:34PM
      • Re:Thought Police by CaptWidget (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @09:13PM
      • Re:Thought Police by Duckie01 (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @07:20AM
    • Re:Thought Police by Adam Jenkins (Score:3) Sunday August 19 2001, @05:56PM
    • Re:Thought Police (Score:5, Funny)

      by Amon Re (102766) on Sunday August 19 2001, @05:59PM (#2195123)
      I will probably be the only here to defend RMS, but I totally agree with Linux being called GNU/Linux when talking about an entire distribution instead of just the kernel. You are ignoring the work of a lot of developers by just calling it Linux. And I know people will say "We should call it Xfree86/BSD/GNU/Linux then." Well Xfree86 and a lot of the BSD code isn't needed at all to get an operating system up and running. GNU and Linux represent the core that is needed.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Thought Police (Score:5, Interesting)

        by brianvan (42539) on Sunday August 19 2001, @06:12PM (#2195166)
        The core that is needed to whom? YOU? What if I need Xfree86, BSD, and perhaps other commercial applications as part of my operating system? Then do I refer to all of them?

        I mean, surely when I tell people what OS I use, I say Windows 98, not Windows98/Office2000/Winamp/AOL/ATI Drivers/Creative Labs Drivers/Winzip/Acrobat Reader...

        I approve of different vendors calling their distributions whatever they want, based on Linux or not. Let Red Hat Linux simply be Red Hat... let them call it Red Hat Linux if they have a Red Hat Windows Compatible OS too. Maybe there's good reasons not to do that either, but I see no reason why Linux should be called GNU/Linux. GNU does not own Linux. And I would laugh if Linus sold the rights off to the kernel one day, as Stallman would be very very screwed...
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Thought Police (Score:5, Insightful)

          Okay, lets set this straight once and for all.

          What is part of the operating system?

          - kernel
          - libraries necessary to run C programs
          - the most basic interface possible

          What is not part of the operating system?

          - GUI
          - web browser
          - office suite
          - your mom

          Okay... so, you should call linux "GNU/Linux", because GNU tools are a larger percentage of the Operating System itself than even the Linux kernel.

          You should not call windows "Windows98/Acrobat Reader" because Acrobat Reader in no way qualifies as a "part of the Operating System".
          [ Parent ]
          • Re:Thought Police by Nater (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:39PM
          • Re:Thought Police by IpalindromeI (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:41PM
          • Re:Thought Police by Your Login Here (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:16PM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:Thought Police by Your_Mom (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @08:41PM
          • Why define an OS that way? It's just dumb. The OS at its most basic form is a command interpreter of some sort, which can be just a kernel. Why specify that an OS must contain libraries that can run C programs? Don't people use languages other than C? And how about straight assembly? If someone writes something that functions as an OS, but it doesn't have C libraries and must be coded for by other means, it's still an OS. Or are we going to start arbitrarily defining things by what languages and libraries they use? Doesn't a piece of software serve the same function, whether it's written in C or Java or Python or whatever? Then stop defining an OS by a compiler or a library. If you want to see an OS at its most basic, just put an ancient DOS command.com on an empty drive, along with whatever text config files that version of DOS will require to load itself. Sure, DOS usually has other files for "external commands" and for access to upper memory, etc.,--but they aren't necessary to do the absolute basics.

            It's just stupid, and besides many people use OSes who wouldn't use a compiler and wouldn't know or care what libraries their software is linked to. An OS, like it or not, is defined by its kernel.

            Let me lather, rinse, and repeat: an OS is defined by its kernel. And here's where I prove it: If I run a Solaris box and install and link to a bunch of GNU stuff, does that magically transform my OS into GNU/Solaris? NO.

            This is why I think Stallman should be largely ignored now that he has already made his historic contribution of the GNU tools. He will go down in history for that accomplishment. But at the moment he's a hindrance, not a help. He has passed his prime, made his contribution, and is now being a petty bitch who squabbles about naming an OS he didn't write. He is actively trying to harm Linux, what with his devotion to the HURD. Anyone who doubts this, should read the post referenced in this story where the Linux glibc porter/maintainer states that Stallman tried to push him into working on glibc for Hurd instead of for Linux.

            It should be obvious that Linux is RMS's "bastard child"--it's the first OS born from the GNU tools, and it has made the Free Software movement what it is today as well as helping spawn Open Source. Without Linux, Free Software would still be a tiny little movemwent instead of being on so many desktops and servers. Yet Stallman doesn't care about Linux, he cares about finally building the kernel for his GNU/HURD dream and eventually putting Linux out to pasture. And that's fine. But don't be a schmuck and think Stallman cares about Linux or should be listened to about a damned thing that has to do with Linux. If it were up to him, all Linux developers would drop their work and start on the Hurd. Things like the attempted coup mentioned in this story just go to show that RMS is slowly sabotaging Linux, in order to promote his Hurd. And before marking this as flamebait, at least read the account linked in the story.
            [ Parent ]
          • Yes, and here's /why/ this is a good idea. by devphil (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @11:30PM
          • Re:Thought Police by miguel (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @11:41PM
          • Re:Thought Police (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Jboy_24 (88864) on Monday August 20 2001, @12:05AM (#2196178) Homepage
            Hmmm, lets look at my Dell machine that is running linux...

            Sony CDR,
            Intel processor
            Rambus memory
            IBM harddrive
            Sony monitor
            Dell motherboard

            You can't very well run a computer without a processor, memory or a harddrive? What arogance of Micheal Dell to call his computers just 'Dell' when he depends on other company's to create THE MOST ecential(sp?) parts of his computers? Shouldn't he give credit to Sony for the CDR and monitor by calling the computer the SonyDell XPS 830? Why Sony even makes a competing product, should they be pissed that Dell just came and USED their CDR and monitor without making his own to sell? What about Intel? A processor 'defines' the computer as to what it can or can't run. I won't be looking at OS/X now that I've got an Intel processor, so shouldn't my comptuer be called a InDell XPS 830?

            Of cousre not, Dell gets to name it Dell because they packaged up the off the shelf parts and put them together and most inportant, they TAKE RESPONSIBLITY for it working. If linux was a POS then RMS would proabaly SUE Linus for naming his OS GNU/Linux. Linux is named linux be cause you look to Linus, the kenrel developers and the distributers of LINUX to insure that Linux works as an operating system. RMS takes NO responsibility that GNU stuff will work with any new version of the kernel, therefore he gets no mention except as Dell might mention Sony. As a feature of the Computer. Not as the computer itself.

            [ Parent ]
          • Re:Thought Police by krogoth (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @02:36AM
          • Re:Thought Police by aardcore (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @03:23AM
          • Re:Thought Police by Nickoty (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @04:31AM
          • Re:Thought Police by No Tears In The End (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @04:49AM
          • Re:Thought Police by Frodo (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @05:35AM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:Thought Police by bero-rh (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @05:57AM
          • Re:Thought Police by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @08:44AM
          • Re:Thought Police by raynet (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @11:11AM
          • Re:Thought Police by jmccay (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @11:43AM
          • Re:Thought Police by raindrop#1 (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @01:56PM
          • Re:Thought Police by Cyno (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @02:22PM
          • Re:Thought Police by Arandir (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @02:41PM
          • Re:Thought Police by Shadowlore (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @04:42PM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:Thought Police by Amon Re (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:27PM
        • Re:Thought Police by (void*) (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:31PM
        • Re:Thought Police by shokk (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @08:20PM
        • Re:Thought Police by Oestergaard (Score:3) Monday August 20 2001, @12:45AM
        • Re:Thought Police by twitter (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @08:54AM
        • Re:Thought Police by Cyno (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @02:27PM
        • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Thought Police by Anthony Boyd (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:22PM
      • Re:Thought Police by eXtro (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:22PM
      • Re:Thought Police (Score:5, Insightful)

        by p3d0 (42270) on Sunday August 19 2001, @06:28PM (#2195238)
        I have an idea. GNU/Linux is a bit of a mouthful, so let's use an abbreviation. I recommend "Linux".
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Thought Police by Alan (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:42PM
      • Distribution names by mogdax (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:48PM
      • Re:Thought Police by ttyRazor (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:51PM
      • Re:Thought Police by Syberghost (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:35PM
      • Re:Thought Police by marcovje (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:44PM
      • Re:Thought Police by Eil (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:51PM
      • Re:Thought Police (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Telek (410366) <da99@home . c om> on Sunday August 19 2001, @08:35PM (#2195607) Homepage
        When I say that I run Linux, I am not saying "Hey, I run this great os written by one guy called Linus Torvalds". I'm saying that I run a free os that is developed by many many many people in total. Adding the GNU/ to the front of the name does nothing towards additional recognation of anyone's work. You don't mention the hardware that it was developed on, the people's names or anything else when talking about the name of your OS. Linux has become an ideal, a namesake, a beacon. It doesn't matter that little billy bob just released his version of SlippyNix 2.0, it's all part of the same cause, the same ideal. A name is not what we're fighting for here guys, it's the thought behind it. Free software (as in beer AND speech) has got to be about more than bickering and fussing about who gets to lay claim to what. We're not about laying claim guys, we're about free speech, free beer, and free ideals, or at least that's what everyone keeps professing and bitching about here.

        Let's choose our real battles, everyone here, and RMS too... What's more important? GNU/Linux or Skylarov and DMCA and DeCSS and tyrany?

        That question I leave up to you to decide.

        {soap box mode: off}
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Thought Police by SuperBug (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @09:34PM
      • Re:Thought Police by fgp (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @12:52AM
      • Re:Thought Police by bero-rh (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @05:54AM
      • Re:Thought Police by BasharTeg (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @09:24AM
      • Re:Thought Police by HiThere (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @12:32PM
      • Re:Thought Police by Bongzilla (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @01:02PM
      • Re:Thought Police by codeforprofit2 (Score:1) Tuesday August 21 2001, @04:14AM
      • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Thought Police by (void*) (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:06PM
    • Re:Thought Police by blonde rser (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:08PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Thought Police by Agrivane (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:09PM
    • Re:Thought Police....NOT that Simple by darkPHi3er (Score:3) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:58PM
    • Re:Thought Police by Oestergaard (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @12:40AM
    • Re:Thought Police by njdj (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @03:03AM
    • Linus Completed, RMS did not by Zeinfeld (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @10:59AM
    • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • strong words by mz001b (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @05:47PM
    • Re:strong words by mz001b (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @09:00PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Hurd vs Linux by slashdot_commentator (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:11PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Those three little letters (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cluening (6626) on Sunday August 19 2001, @05:48PM (#2195085) Homepage
    Adding GNU to the front of Linux seems to me a lot like adding "FedEx" to the front of "Super Bowl" or something like that. It just seems like somebody wanting to get their name in lights for doing background work. Maybe I'm strange, but when I do background work, I usually enjoy being credited in the background someplace, not out in front of the people who pull things together in the end...
  • What I'd like to know... by denzo (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @05:52PM
  • Hipocricy of Mr. Taco by MSBob (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @05:56PM
  • Stallman.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Crossfire (15197) on Sunday August 19 2001, @05:59PM (#2195124) Homepage
    I'm pretty sure those of us who have met Stallman in person would agree wholeheartedly.

    Despite the fact the cause has some degree of validity, the extremes which he takes it to regularly stomps on people's toes, and is generally antisocial.

    I had the (mis?)fortune to meet him during one of his visits to Canberra, Australia - which, over lunch, he proceded to argue that our local Linux Users Group (CLUG) should rename itself to the Canberra GNU/Linux Users Group. This did not go down well.

    Even though there are some fairly valid reasons as to why, its still fairly egotistical of him - did he ask for a consensus of all the developers releasing "GNU Software"? Does his own technical work make up a large slice of the GNU works used by linux? [No, Emacs does not count as a large slice, despite its footprint. ;)]

    Just consider RMS as what he really is, a politican.
    • Re:Stallman.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by jorbettis (113413) on Sunday August 19 2001, @06:12PM (#2195164) Homepage

      Well, it's not about stallman's ego, it's about making people realize that there is more to Free Software than the apolitical views of Linus.

      BTW, here's a quote from one of Stallman's speeches (it was very well recieved):

      When I do this, some people think it's because I want my ego to be fed. Of course, it's not like I'm asking you to call it Stallmanix.

      -- Richard Stallman on GNU/Linux


      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Stallman.... by FrostyWheaton (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:38PM
      • Linus didn't name his OS by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:43PM
      • Re:Stallman.... by sv0f (Score:3) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:21PM
      • Re:Stallman.... (Score:4, Troll)

        by miguel (7116) on Sunday August 19 2001, @11:44PM (#2196128) Homepage
        Linus did not choose the name `Linux'. Linus chose the name `Freax' and the guy running the funet.fi archive decided that was a horrible name and renamed the kernel for him.

        People gathered around this new operating system that was being written from scratch, and they wrote piles of tools that were missing for this new Linux thing. Many tools came from GNU, yes, but many others were assembled and contributed by many people specifically to make Linux run.

        It is funny how history is rewritten these days. If you ask the people who were around rms on the early days of Linux, you will see that they tell a story from different angles: `Do not work on Linux, work on the Hurd, anything else is a waste of time'. At least this is the story as told by Donald and now Ulrich.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Stallman.... by bug1 (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @12:43AM
      • Maybe they could compromise (Score:5, Funny)

        by Angelwrath (125723) on Monday August 20 2001, @12:59AM (#2196273)
        If Stallman wants proper credit given to GNU/Linux, and he contributed so much to GNU, I say we combine Stallman and Linux to give both central figures credit to the OS.

        We will now call it "Stallinux".

        D'OH!
        [ Parent ]
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Stallman.... by krogoth (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @02:40AM
      • Re:Stallman.... by Bongo (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @04:56AM
      • Re:Stallman.... by CyberKnet (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @11:23AM
      • Re:Stallman.... by reflective recursion (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:59PM
      • Re:Stallman.... by philipm (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @09:57PM
      • Re:Stallman.... by lostguy (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @12:43AM
      • Re:Stallman.... by Glytch (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @11:34AM
      • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Stallman.... by Amon Re (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:13PM
    • Re:Stallman.... by h2odragon (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:46PM
    • Re:Stallman.... (Score:4, Funny)

      by sharkey (16670) on Sunday August 19 2001, @07:15PM (#2195395)
      ...rename itself to the Canberra GNU/Linux Users Group. This did not go down well.

      But then you could call yourselves "C-GLUG", and make beer a staple part of your group.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Stallman.... by MRousseau (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @09:09PM
    • Re:Stallman.... by waveman (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @09:41PM
    • Re:Stallman.... by vu13 (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @09:55PM
    • Re:Stallman.... by djp928 (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @11:05PM
    • Re:Stallman.... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @03:15AM
    • Re:Stallman.... by Rogain (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @06:00AM
    • Re:Stallman.... by UnknownSoldier (Score:3) Monday August 20 2001, @08:35AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Met him but dont agree by barryvoeten (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @09:22AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Stallman.... by hacksoncode (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @11:47AM
    • Re:Stallman.... by Glabrezu (Score:1) Wednesday August 22 2001, @09:54AM
    • Re:At MIT too by mkcmkc (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @09:34PM
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • wait a moment by SubtleNuance (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:05PM
  • Names (Score:3, Interesting)

    by _iris (92554) on Sunday August 19 2001, @06:06PM (#2195141) Homepage
    I hope I don't see any README files bitching about "give credit where credit is due" and not calling GNU&Linux (my variant which is a bit more descriptive imo) by a name which gives credit to the GNU developers (not the FSF developers but anyone who releases their code under the GPL).

    On the other hand, does the name of XMMS give credit to the mpg123 developers? There are plenty of projects which repackage other GNU software without giving credit in the name. Does the GNU licensing give enough credit? I really don't think so, but demanding that the name of every project incorporated is not the answer either. Mozilla/XPCom/Bugzilla/Talkback/etc.

    --Drew Vogel
    • Re:Names by the_rev_matt (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:35PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • GNU is Not UNIX or Linux. but Linux needs ' GNU ' by Zero__Kelvin (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:10PM
  • why call it GNU/linux by dermond (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:13PM
  • That's FUD by j7953 (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:18PM
    • Re:That's FUD by uchian (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:52PM
      • Re:That's FUD by David Hume (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @08:09PM
    • Re:That's FUD by Phroggy (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:58PM
      • Re:That's FUD by David Hume (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @08:20PM
        • Re:That's FUD by Phroggy (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @08:43PM
          • Re:That's FUD by David Hume (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:05PM
      • Re:That's FUD by Arandir (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @09:55PM
    • Re:That's FUD by Zico (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:32PM
    • Re:That's FUD by Chester K (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @08:04PM
      • Re:That's FUD by dvdeug (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:05PM
      • Re:That's FUD by Chris Johnson (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:42PM
    • Re:That's FUD by David Hume (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @08:33PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • The Nature of the Beast by pryan (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:19PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Crystal Space by JohnG (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:21PM
    • Re:Crystal Space by SuiteSisterMary (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @09:20AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • GNU/linux || Linux thats the question by kuiken (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:25PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Not the schism you think (Score:4, Interesting)

    by The Pim (140414) on Sunday August 19 2001, @06:27PM (#2195232)
    tension continues to grow between the extreme free speech faction and the more moderate folks.

    Ulrich is actually a pretty staunch defender of software freedom. I think this is a political and personality conflict, more than a difference in ideology.

    But then, Ulrich is quite inscrutable, so I don't claim to speak for him.

  • Comparison by Nater (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:28PM
  • Elimination of the FSF by Reality Master 101 (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:30PM
  • Presumption of Innocence (Score:4, Informative)

    by mdavids (143296) on Sunday August 19 2001, @06:36PM (#2195266) Homepage
    "Stallman recently tried what I would call a hostile takeover of the glibc development. He tried to conspire behind my back and persuade the other main developers to take control so that in the end he is in control and can dictate whatever pleases him."

    How? Why?

    "The morale of this is that people will hopefully realize what a control freak and raging manic Stallman is."

    Because you say so? I think I'll reserve judgement until I hear something more than "He just is, okay!"

    This $&%$& demands everything to be labeled in a way which credits him and he does not stop before making completely wrong statements like "its variant".

    Aha! So that's what it's all about. I find it surprising that someone working on "the GNU C library" as it's called in these release notes, should take exception to the idea that it's supposed to be a part of the GNU operating system.

    Calling the operating system GNU/Linux, GNU/Hurd or whatever is not egotism (or not just egotism, anyway). It's an accurate description of what the system is. Look at, for instance, reviews [unixreview.com] calling openUNIX "Linux without Linux". That just sounds absurd, unless you know that the first "Linux" actually means "GNU".

    I find this completely unacceptable and can assure everybody that I consider none of the code I contributed to glibc (which is quite a lot) to be as part of the GNU project and so a major part of what Stallman claims credit for is simply going away.

    Does not play well with others. End of story.

  • (L)GPL issue: upgradability by tve (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:42PM
  • Call it GNU/Linux if you like... (Score:4, Informative)

    by cperciva (102828) on Sunday August 19 2001, @06:45PM (#2195297) Homepage
    ... but also make sure you refer to Microsoft BSD/Windows.

    Giving credit where credit is due is one thing, but trying to give everyone credit in the name is just going to lead to horribly long names.
  • Hypocrisy (Score:3, Informative)

    by Feign Ram (114284) on Sunday August 19 2001, @06:47PM (#2195302)
    Found this interesting entry in Miguel de Icaza's weblog - http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/activity-log.ht ml, dated Jul'28th -

    I talked to Don Becker about GNU/Linux, and he had an interesting story to tell. Back in the day when he was at MIT and was an active contributor to gcc, he tried to get RMS to support Linux. RMS' answer back in the day went along the lines of `Linux is a waste of time, work on the Hurd instead, it is the future'.

    An interesting twist to the Linux vs GNU/Linux debate.


    Seems to confirm what RMS told Drepper. He seems to want it both ways . More developers need to come forward with their experiences - they will be doing the community a service.
    • Re:Hypocrisy by tve (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:02PM
    • Re:Hypocrisy by RelliK (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @08:12PM
      • Re:Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @02:59AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • GNU/Linux or bust by extrasolar (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:48PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Hostile Takeovers... by Jacques Chester (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:48PM
  • Don't forget that Ulrich attacks Linus as well by tinomeinen (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:49PM
  • GNU libc by deXela (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:51PM
  • RMS has an uncomfortable agenda by jefe289 (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:57PM
  • Can't we all just be friends? by mrfiddlehead (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:58PM
  • Incredible Irony... by lbmoore (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:58PM
  • Not the first time (Score:5, Interesting)

    by one-egg (67570) <geoff@cs.hmc.edu> on Sunday August 19 2001, @07:01PM (#2195354) Homepage
    Stallman did the same thing in the early 90's with ispell. Briefly, a misunderstanding about licensing led him to conclude that I would never release ispell under a GPL-compatible license, so he decided to find an independent branch for release with the FSF stamp of approval. That part was fine, but he quite deliberately chose to call his version "ispell 4.0" in an attempt to fool people into converting from ispell 3.x. People weren't fooled, much screaming resulted, and ispell 4.0 eventually disappeared off the face of the earth after I switched ispell 3.x to the BSD license.

    A more complete version of the tale can be found in the Contributors file in the ispell distribution. That narration bends over backwards to avoid starting a flame war, so it is quite generous in describing Stallman's actions. But I haven't forgotten his attempts to trick the general public into doing what he wanted (which continue to this day), nor the generally rude way in which he behaved.

    • tried to grab procps by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:52PM
    • Re:Not the first time by enneff (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @09:29PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Not the first time by Elbereth (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @05:07AM
    • by Per Abrahamsen (1397) on Monday August 20 2001, @06:06AM (#2196737) Homepage
      You (I assume you are Geoff Kuenning) leave out a lot from that story...

      1. The version wasn't merely not "GPL-compatible", it wasn't open software either. Specifically, it did not allow for-profit distribution alone.

      2. People suggested removing these restrictions to you was vicioucly flamed, you wouldn't even accept that these restriction existed. This might be the cause of the "misunderstanding".

      3. ispell 4.0 was not derived from your code. It was derived from the code of _original_ ispell author (i.e. not you), who had assigned his code to the FSF. Specifically, it lacked all the i18n features you had added.

      It is true that FSF withdraw[1] ispell 4.0 as soon as ispell 3.x was released under a free software license. I think that makes it pretty clear that the action was in defence for free software, not an attempt to increase their control.

      [1] As far as one can withdraw alreeady released free software -- ispell 4.0 still have DOS/Windows users as version 3 was much harder to port to DOS. This, b.t.w. is still a cause of confusion about what version is newer. Something that could easily be solved by releasing a version 3 derivative as version 5. That would require someone to be more pragmatic and less determined about whose fault it is, though.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Not the first time by Asic Eng (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @03:28AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • So all this is about (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Improv (2467) <pgunn@dachte.org> on Sunday August 19 2001, @07:08PM (#2195376) Homepage Journal
    Essentially some wording that postures Linux as
    an *alternative* to what the GNU project considers
    it's 'main' thrust, Hurd? And this fellow didn't
    manage to win over enough support within the
    glibc project to stop a wording change?
    Admittedly, RMS's obsession with this wordplay
    seems to me to be unwise (it'd be better if he'd
    focus on keeping the movement ideologically pure
    rather than focusing on diction), but this fellow
    doesn't strike me as being any more wise.
    Posturing and replies to it are a waste of time --
    where there are no actual effects on the way
    things are run, it's better to just ignore such
    things and spend that time coding, fighting
    intellectual property, and other worthwhile causes.
  • These threads... by Nate Fox (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:09PM
  • Regarding "Linux" vs. "GNU/Linux".. by tosderg (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:10PM
  • YAHW by RestiffBard (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:13PM
  • Interesting points raised by horza (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:14PM
  • Stallman (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mikethegeek (257172) <blair AT NOwcmifm DOT comSPAM> on Sunday August 19 2001, @07:16PM (#2195398) Homepage
    I really admire RMS, but I have to say, he does go off the deep end to the point that he may be doing more to HURT the FSF than help it.

    I understand that free software is as much a political movement as it is an idea for better software. However, RMS seems to be HOSTILE to those who don't make the same choices he does. Freedom to me, means, that, freedom. It's about having the freedom to make good or bad choices.

    The KDE controversy, and this takeover attempt on GLIBC etc, makes him look more like a raving lunatic, and by extension, makes ALL of us who support the principle of the GPL and open source look the same. Why? Because Stallman proclaims himself the leader of the whole movement whenever asked, or not asked.

    While I have tremendous respect for the man, and his philospohy, his despotic style runs contrary to the whole anarchistic nature of free software. RMS needs to realize that not EVERYTHING needs to be called "GNU/".
    • Re:Stallman by philipm (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @08:22PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Stallman by vu13 (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @09:59PM
      • Re:Stallman by mikethegeek (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:11PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Stallman by jsse (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @11:09PM
    • Re:Stallman by Malcontent (Score:3) Sunday August 19 2001, @11:54PM
      • O'Reilly by Frodo (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @05:49AM
      • Re:Stallman by elefantstn (Score:3) Monday August 20 2001, @08:50AM
        • Re:Stallman by Malcontent (Score:2) Tuesday August 21 2001, @11:14PM
        • Re:Stallman by elefantstn (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @12:34PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Stallman by profplump (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @11:45AM
        • Re:Stallman by Malcontent (Score:2) Tuesday August 21 2001, @11:40PM
      • Re:Stallman by James Lanfear (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @01:08PM
        • Re:Stallman by Malcontent (Score:2) Tuesday August 21 2001, @11:31PM
      • Re:Stallman by revscat (Score:3) Monday August 20 2001, @01:44PM
      • Re:Stallman by Rick the Red (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @02:09PM
        • Re:Stallman by Malcontent (Score:2) Tuesday August 21 2001, @11:28PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Stallman by Malcontent (Score:2) Tuesday August 21 2001, @11:42PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Stallman by fdsa (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @02:55AM
    • Re:Stallman (KDE controversy) by HiThere (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @12:15PM
    • Re:Stallman by codeforprofit2 (Score:1) Tuesday August 21 2001, @05:12AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • My favorite part :) by ilkahn (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:19PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by MarkusQ (450076) on Sunday August 19 2001, @07:19PM (#2195410) Journal
    I'll bet Microsoft loves this whole "debate."


    Imagine their war room--one whole wall is a giant whiteboard, filled with a huge grid. Each week a top PR droid goes over and picks a blank cell. They make a few phone calls, and by the end of the week Eris has drawn a little golden apple in the cell.


    I'll bet someone is on the phone right now, trying to get Ransome Love to say something ill-advised about fetchmail.



    -- MarkusQ

    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Communism, Free Software (Score:3, Troll)

    by Guppy06 (410832) on Sunday August 19 2001, @07:20PM (#2195411) Journal
    Lots of people have made the analogy between the two as far as the advantages of free software are concerned. However, looking at this little tidbit, it looks like free software has some of the disadvantages as well (but there are differences between the two that make the disadvantages less severe).


    The main problem with communism and free software is that, in order to get get to the blissful anarchy that Marx promises, you need a period of totalitarian management to restructure from the existing system to the new one. Unfortunately, absolute power corrupts asolutely, and you're stuck with a totalitarian system that doesn't want to give up.


    This really rears its ugly head when the philosophy starts to expand. As both communism and free software started to catch on, the bigger proponents of the philosophy would rather expand the power of their own totalitarian regimes rather than help establish autonomous regimes. In the eyes of Moscow, for example, the Ukraine Socialist Republic was good, but the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic was better (it wasn't until later that they learned of the advantages of puppet states). And the same is true with the GNU: Instead of presenting themselves and their liscencing scheme as one out of a list of alternatives, they'd rather all free software be written under the GPL.


    Fortunately, when all is said and done, we're talking about an operating system and not a system of government. No matter how much people like Stallman bitch and moan, dissenting voices never have to worry about the GNU/KGB descending upon them and the Coders' Army won't send in the tanks to prevent code forking. So when all is said and done, short of brainwashing, people are still perfectly capable of making up their own mind about what they want to write or run, Which is good, because I find some GNU tools to be a pain to learn...


    At any rate, in the game of Axis & Allies that is the OS war, we'll call Microsoft facist Germany, GNU will be the Soviet Union, and for the role of the political moderates (relatively speaking), we have corporations like IBM and RedHat as the US and the UK. Now all we need is somebody to play Japan...


    Oh, yeah, Apple. Duh...

  • Changing the GNU icon in /. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Guppy06 (410832) on Sunday August 19 2001, @07:24PM (#2195417) Journal
    If we have Gates/Borg pic as the icon for MS, why not modify a pic of Stallman for the GNU icon? Maybe put a fuzzy hat on his head and give him a Stalin-esque mustache. Or maybe something inspired by C&C: Red Alert.


    OK, now I'm thinking about using that Hell March tune from the game as the start-up sound in Gnome...

  • Hurd Turd by S. Allen (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:25PM
    • Re:Hurd Turd by swv3752 (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @09:34PM
  • Let your children go RMS by jrst (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:30PM
  • tip the tables. by JDizzy (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:32PM
  • This is an incredibly childish fight by jd (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:33PM
  • Gnu this would happen (I'm sure you've all hurd). by Mandelbrute (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:40PM
  • We built this Linux by Travoltus (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:42PM
  • Dictatorship or Brotherhood? by Futurepower(tm) (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:45PM
  • GNUisance (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Sunday August 19 2001, @07:50PM (#2195494)
    Pigdog journal [pigdog.org] coined this term during their interview with Stallman [pigdog.org] that I think describe him very accurately.
  • stop the propagandistic language by mj6798 (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:54PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • bickering by daevt (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @08:00PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • RMS just wants the power by erroneus (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @08:08PM
  • In Defence of RMS and The Cause by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @08:19PM
  • Sorry, but I must post: by Telek (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @08:24PM
  • Fuck Stallman and the GNU he rode in on. by WindowsTwinkee (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @08:32PM
  • Score -1, Troll (Score:4, Troll)

    by RelliK (4466) on Sunday August 19 2001, @08:43PM (#2195623)
    So let me get this straight: some guy accuses RMS of "hostile takeover" of a *GNU* project. This guy makes some strong claims in his article. He uses terms like "conspiracy", "embrace and extend", "stab in the back", etc. Such extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... and he offers none. There are only two pieces of information in the article:
    1) Steering Comittee was formed so that one person (the whining guy) does not have complete control over the project
    2) glibc license was changed from LGPL 2.0 to LGPL 2.1.
    And this is supposed to be bad how? How does that justify the claim that RMS is a "control freak"? Everything else in the article is pure rhetoric without even a shed of evidence.

    People, please, before you do your usual "some guy good, RMS bad" knee-jerk reaction read the damn article and think. glibc is GNU libc, it is not a one man's project. It sounds to me like this guy is a control freak -- he started whining after he realized that other people have a say in the project development. So yeah, this entire article is a troll.
    • Re:Score -1, Troll (Score:5, Insightful)

      by krogoth (134320) <slashdot AT garandnet DOT net> on Monday August 20 2001, @03:15AM (#2196469) Homepage
      How about this:

      "The glibc situation is even more frightening if one realizes the story
      behind it. When I started porting glibc 1.09 to Linux (which
      eventually became glibc 2.0) Stallman threatened me and tried to force
      me to contribute rather to the work on the Hurd."


      That's how it's supposed to be bad. If you look at ESR's recent article, he says that developers should have the freedom to do what they want. If i'm not reading this wrong, Drepper is the maintainer of glibc, and so should decide what goes on - if he has a plan for how it will work and evolve, and it's his project, then he should have the right to have the project follow his plan, and not be taken out of his control.
      He also says:

      "I find this completely unacceptable and can assure
      everybody that I consider none of the code I contributed to glibc
      (which is quite a lot) to be as part of the GNU project and so a major
      part of what Stallman claims credit for is simply going away."


      If he's an important contributor, and the project maintainer, I think he has every right to control the project. He is not a control freak just because he wants his project to be given to someone else! This doesn't apply to all situations, but for some projects it's good to have one person in control who decides how things will work, and controls the overall architecture and the project in general.
      [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • More credits by manifested2 (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @09:16PM
  • This is a major problem by danheskett (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @09:22PM
  • by NortonDC (211601) on Sunday August 19 2001, @09:50PM (#2195804) Homepage
    That's a contraction due to length constaints of RMS's actually sig in a letter to The Register.

    Sincerely,
    Richard Stallman
    Principal developer of the operating system often inaccurately called "Linux"


    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/18291.html [theregister.co.uk]

    No, no glory grabbing at all, nothing to see here, move along...
  • Drepper is wrong here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Andy Tai (1884) on Sunday August 19 2001, @09:58PM (#2195831) Homepage
    RMS may like control, but look at this case we can see Drepper is the one with a bigger ego than RMS. Let's look at the facts:

    1. RMS is accused of taking over the control of a GNU project. Not mentioning that RMS probably started the glibc project and contributed code in earlier years, how has RMS tried to control glibc? Does RMS decide, say, how glibc should be written? I don't see that. Drepper is in full technical control.

    2. The only place where Drepper is unhappy about seems to be the "GNU/Linux" mentioning in LGPL 2.1. Otherwise LGPL 2.1 and 2.0 are about the same. The licenses give the same rights to users. Drepper makes a big deal out of a naming issue which is not even part of the actual license requirements. And glibc being a GNU Project, switching to LGPL 2.1 seems ony natural. Just a routine step.

    3. Drepper seems unhappy about the creation of a SC. He accuses the SC was an attempt to steal the project. From him. Now, who is the one wanting control here? The SC is a more democratic way to run a project than a single maintainer. At least the other contributors have more say than letting Drepper decide everything.

    4. Drepper wants control, which can be seen by his handling of the gcc 3 issue. Drepper disagreed with gcc developers (many of them) on certain technical issues over gcc 3. He once declared he would never accept patches to make glibc capable of being built with gcc 3. Despite other glibc contributors' attempts to find a solution, he just says, "NO, I won't accept any patches". This issue does not involve RMS at all, and Drepper just goes against many gcc developers, who are perhaps some of the smartest compiler people in the world. It is hard to say that Drepper is right and all these gcc people are wrong.

    RMS may like control, but in this story Drepper is more of a control freak and has a bigger ego.

  • RMS is the idealist, the guiding beacon. by secher (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:03PM
  • tesla, diesel, and every other inventor by Ledge (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:10PM
  • Whats really interesting by I_redwolf (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:12PM
  • Where does it all end? by drix (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:12PM
  • Well, RMS is just following BG's lead by Quixote (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:13PM
  • BSD/GNU by seebs (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:16PM
  • Realization by Anonymous Powered (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:24PM
  • This one's over... by Registered Coward v2 (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:38PM
  • I've seen this brewing... by mckinlay (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:48PM
  • Great Leaders... by Dutchie (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:52PM
  • am i reading this right? by gvsu_snow_lord (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:52PM
  • America is not America... by jamirocake (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:54PM
  • The BSD developers are all over this one by vmalloc_ (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @11:23PM
  • Stallman has pulled an ungly one here by uriyan (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @11:45PM
  • You don't have to like RMS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rho (6063) on Sunday August 19 2001, @11:48PM (#2196137) Homepage Journal

    Think about what RMS does, and why -- he has a passionate belief "software should be Free", and expresses it in a fairly consistant manner. He fights a somewhat unpopular fight with little reward -- outside of recognition within of a small, tight-knit community, which isn't much.

    RMS has been fighting this fight longer than some GNU/Linux nerds have been alive. He had the vision to kick the thing off in the first place. His reward? A string of Slashdot readers questioning his relevency, sanity and parentage.

    While I may disagree with some of RMS's views (I get the occasional whiff of Unreconstructed Socialist from some of his writing, and nobody hates a commie (or a socialist) more than me), I have the utmost respect for his work, and I'm thankful for it.

    While Ulrich may have a genuine beef with RMS, waving it about in public (and Slashdot posting the story) is not very professional, nor productive.

  • Yo yo yo by ioman1 (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @11:52PM
  • What if RMS did take control of glibc? by tblin (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @11:55PM
  • Megalomaniac by Eric Cox (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @12:00AM
  • CT said... by mirko (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @12:01AM
  • The Philosophical Ideals of Gnu/Linux by masq (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @12:19AM
  • by Adam J. Richter (17693) on Monday August 20 2001, @01:17AM (#2196301)


    The basic idealogical dispute is that previously it was illegal to link glibc with proprietary software linked by non-GNU compilers due to a special "modified GPL" in the libio section of the GNU C Library. The change that the steering committee (who are developers like Roland McGrath, not just "Stallman") made was primiarily to convert that code to LGPL. Ulrich was the one being an idealogue about it. In this case, the steering committee was the group that was actually trying to get the right thing done for the users.



    The glibc-2.2.4 announcement advised everyone to switch to it. What the announcement did not mention is that if you try to configure glibc-2.2.4, you discover that it does not want to build under gcc-3. The steering committee is pushing for a fast release of glibc-2.2.5 which will not have this problem.



    So far, the steering committee seems to be a very positive influence. In the past, people were giving up hope on glibc due to its bloat, arcaneness, and legal issues. The SC seems much more focused on what users want.



    By the way, let me say that Ulrich Drepper has made many contributions to glibc and I hope he will continue to be involved as a contributor.


  • Stallman on politics (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Chris Siegler (3170) on Monday August 20 2001, @01:20AM (#2196304)

    Crazy: A person who keeps doing the same thing again and again expecting different results.

    In must be infuriating to him why people don't agree with him when he's sure that his arguments are both correct and, to his mind anyway, persuasive. The problem is that he is still using the same tactics he used 10 years ago, but apparently hoping that the results will be different.

    He knows he's right and that if people just understood his point of view that they would rally behind his cause. It's his achilles heel, his kryptonite. Blessed with intelligence but without social skills.

    But I'm sure that nobody here can relate.

  • blech by underpaidISPtech (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @01:27AM
  • Laughing by evocate (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @01:33AM
    • Re:Laughing by Lazy Jones (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @05:36PM
      • Re:Laughing by evocate (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @07:47PM
  • "What are we going to do tonight, Richard?" by Ukab the Great (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @01:54AM
  • RMS by dalpeh (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @02:18AM
  • This is why people scoff at open-source by HongPong (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @02:25AM
  • No news today by LinuxGeek8 (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @02:25AM
  • New Analogy!! by AYEq (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @02:31AM
  • Who's up for LinuxBSD? by Dahan (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @02:42AM
  • Meanwhile, glibc is a buggy piece of crap. by cameldrv (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @02:54AM
  • blah by geomcbay (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @03:02AM
  • Civilised discourse, anyone? by njdj (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @03:09AM
  • Keep the politics out of the software... by Otis_INF (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @03:39AM
  • Cool down. by Armin Herbert (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @04:12AM
  • A quote: by markbthomas (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @06:09AM
  • ATT/Solaris by nbvb (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @06:36AM
  • Meta-Moderators, PLEASE! by SLOGEN (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @06:37AM
  • Call it GNU/Linux When RMS Calls it GNUFree! by werdna (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @06:49AM
  • GNU/Linux and stuff by MarsDude (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @07:14AM
  • Does anyone remember lignux? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bruce W. Murphy (216707) on Monday August 20 2001, @08:06AM (#2196907)
    I remember back in the good old days, when people were more than fully aware that Stallman was a frothing left-wing pinko frothing commie frothing fanatic... I specifically remember him trying to pull a very similar trick.

    All at once, he popped up on the linux kernel mailing list and demanded that becuase he was a big and very important person, that linux immediately be renamed 'lignux'. Naturally enough he was laughed off the face of thelist.

    Some weeks later the next major version of emacs was released featuring autoconf identifying systems as i386-unknown-lignux. Naturally enough, the rest of the world who hadn't seen Stallman's tantrum were puzzled by this. Eventually (the next day) someone released a patch and it swept the world bringing a certain frothing fanatic's to his knees.

    After the laughter and taunting had died down, it all just died away. I wonder how many people now involved with linux and this issue actually remember. Perhaps it should be a maxim that fanatics of any kind make dangerous enemies, but even more dangerous friends...

    B>
  • GPL/LGPL-Version Games (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gotan (60103) on Monday August 20 2001, @08:07AM (#2196909) Homepage
    When reading the following snippet about version changes i decided to do as suggested and have a look at the license:

    Read the licenses carefully and rip out parts which give Stallman any possibility to influence your future. Phrases like
    [...] GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
    just invites him to screw you when it pleases him. Rip out the "any later version" part [...]

    And sure enough, it wasn't part of the License itself, but of the (although suggestive) part on how to apply the license to your source code. In the License it says:
    13. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the Lesser General Public License from time to time. [...]


    Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Library specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Library does not specify a license version number, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
    This clause seems a little strange at first, and note, that you can restrict the licensing of a library to a specific version of the LGPL (although it's not explicitly said so you can do so by specifying the LGPL-Version). I think there is a good reason for using that option though, as long as one assumes, that the LGPL and the GPL will stay the same in spirit (the [...] part in above quote): what if you merge two libraries or use part of one library with part of another, soon you'll probably find all versions of the LGPL applicable to different parts of the code. Also an upgraded Version might close some loopholes of previous ones, so if you trust the FSF to do the right thing with the LGPL it's probably a good thing to leave the option of a License upgrade open to later developers. And anyway, as long as one person or group of persons keep control of a project (in the sense of being responsible for it) it's their choice, what specific licence the actual code ships with.

    I also noted, that (3) allows to elevate LGPLd code to GPLd code. Again this makes sense, in the case that you want to use LGPLd code in a GPLd project (but not vice versa, which wouldn't make sense anyway, since that would 'degrade' the GPL to the LGPL). I think these paragraphs are in there for convenience's sake and not to give RMS total control over anything GPLd. Anyway, ripping the first quoted snippet out of context and using it to picture RMS as a controlfreak is, in my opinion, bad style. RMS often enough comes through, well, overenthusiastic, to say the least. The "GNU/Linux" vs. "Linux" debate doesn't help that either, but let's be honest, Linux wouldn't be what it is today, hadn't the GNU Software and the free software idea already been in place.
  • Theocracies by Ektanoor (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @08:55AM
  • A bad omen? by Cloud K (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @09:48AM
  • slight hypocrisy by shepard (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @10:46AM
  • Is this Drepper's brain "kaput"? by ShallowBlue (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @10:55AM
  • "No GNUs is good GNUs..." by EvilStein (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @11:26AM
  • Ulrich Drepper Attempting Hostile GPL Takeover by Chris Johnson (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @12:31PM
  • two words - Public Domain by bobalu (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @12:54PM
  • What does the M in RMS stand for by slam smith (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @01:47PM
  • RMS by 7-Vodka (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @03:12PM
  • Why "GNU/Linux" is a Misnomer. by Deven (Score:2) Monday August 20 2001, @05:53PM
  • free speech? by samantha (Score:1) Tuesday August 21 2001, @02:46AM
  • Re:RMS has his reasons by Servo (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @05:51PM
  • Re:RMS has his reasons by HoaryCripple (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @05:51PM
  • Re:RMS has his reasons by HoaryCripple (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @05:55PM
  • Re:RMS has his reasons by Anml4ixoye (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @05:55PM
  • Re:RMS has his reasons by jallen02 (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @05:55PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Perhaps this will open some eyes (Score:3, Interesting)

    by quartz (64169) <shadowman@mylaptop.com> on Sunday August 19 2001, @06:04PM (#2195139) Homepage
    I don't consider myself a "rabid RMS fan", but if it weren't for this megalomaniac, I wouldn't have a means now to thumb my nose at proprietary software and live my life Microsoft-free. I deeply respect him for that, and I'm willing to cut him some slack on occasion, especially since nobody (including this Drepper guy - his story looks more like a rant than anything else) has particularly compelling evidence to support their "RMS is a raving lunatic megalomaniac" claims. Now don't get me wrong, I will be as dissappointed as the next guy if it turns out that RMS is really losing it, but I won't deny the obvious, WHEN it becomes obvious. Call me conservative, but right now, Ulrich Drepper looks more like a raving lunatic to me for venting off like that in an official release document.

    Besides, RMS can't really harm free software anyway, his own license would prevent him. :-)
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Perhaps this will open some eyes by (void*) (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:16PM
  • Re:This says nothing by mhaisley (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:22PM
  • Re:RMS has his reasons by Phroggy (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:23PM
  • One word: by Von Rex (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:25PM
  • Re:This I can't agree with by MikeFM (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:45PM
  • Re:Everybody saw this coming by Glytch (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:49PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Perhaps this will open some eyes by IpalindromeI (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:50PM
  • Re:RMS? Hostile? Nah by mrbill (Score:2) Sunday August 19 2001, @06:50PM
  • Re:I throw my support behind Stallman by RGRistroph (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @07:04PM
  • A Man for All Seasons by n0-0p (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @09:11PM
  • Re:WE cannot trust to RedHat's Ulrich Drepper by Mandelbrute (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @09:45PM
  • Re:Perhaps this will open some eyes by efgbr (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @10:12PM
  • Re:be rational folks by orange7 (Score:1) Sunday August 19 2001, @11:53PM
  • Re:RMS doesn't realize he's already won by erroneus (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @01:16AM
  • Re:RMS has his reasons by BasharTeg (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @09:10AM
  • Re:"Animal Farm" sounds promising by blue trane (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @10:44AM
  • Doesn't sound like a troll to me by lamontg (Score:1) Monday August 20 2001, @12:58PM
  • 65 replies beneath your current threshold.
(1) | 2